list_personas

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or how profile scoping (account vs profile-scoped keys) affects results. The parameter descriptions cover some scoping semantics, but the tool description itself reveals nothing about runtime behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with zero filler. However, it's borderline under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness—while nothing is wasted, the brevity leaves key guidance gaps that other dimensions penalize.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a listing tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is inadequate. The schema covers parameter mechanics, but the description fails to explain return format, pagination semantics, profile-scoping rules, or distinguish this from list_available_personas. The nested filter object and profile_id scoping complexity warrant more explanation than a single clause.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters have descriptions in the schema. The schema covers limit, offset, order_by, order_desc, filter, and profile_id semantics. With full coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no additional parameter nuance beyond what the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description "ペルソナ一覧を取得" (get list of personas) identifies the verb (取得/fetch) and resource (ペルソナ一覧/persona list) clearly. However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like list_available_personas or get_persona, providing no scoping or filtering nuance to help distinguish it from those alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_available_personas, get_persona, or search. The schema hints at account/profile scoping (profile_id required for account-scoped keys), but the description itself provides no when-to-use context or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.